Practice Toolset

A pupil gives her impression of the pupillage interview process and the insight it provides into life in chambers 

Pupillage: without a doubt the most daunting and challenging hurdle to be overcome on the long and rocky road between university and finally becoming someone’s “learned friend.” For anyone with ambitions to become a barrister the Pupillage Portal Scheme (formerly the Online Pupillage Application System (“OLPAS”)) is fraught with anxiety: either you get it right or you run the pupillage gauntlet again in 12 months time. And it was not until I started pupillage that I thought about it in any other way. Not once had I thought of the hours that it must have taken barristers at the other end to read, mark and order. It was only when I was asked, for this article, to think about the impression different chambers created to me as the interviewee—did I start to think about the whole process a little differently. 

As the pupillage interviewing season commences, a leading criminal set describes how it runs the recruitment process 

Like most chambers, our junior tenants are almost always recruited from our own pupils. Over the last 15 years, we have taken on one or more of our pupils each year. The importance to us of pupillage selection is obvious and the responsibility falls on our Pupillage Committee. 

James Sharpe discusses the stages of a Law Commission project from start to finish 

Although many are aware of the work of the Law Commission (“the Commission”), fewer may be aware of the stages of a Commission project and how its recommendations fit into the overall process of law reform. This article offers an insight by taking the example of the Commission’s Report, “Children: Their Non-Accidental Death or Serious Injury (Criminal Trials)” (Law Com No 279) which was implemented via ss 5 and 6 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. This introduced the offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult. 

Belle Turner reports on the recent YBS seminar “All Change? Or not? For the Young Bar”.  

At this time of great change at the Bar there is some concern as to whether young barristers at a grassroots level are engaged with the potentially career-changing decisions that senior members of chambers may be taking on behalf of their members. There is no small irony that, as a young barrister in a set wishing to become a Legal Disciplinary Practice (“LDP”), for example, the senior members of chambers may profit considerably from the work of the juniors for many years before the juniors themselves benefit. There is a sense in many of the emails which I receive that this wasn’t what people signed up for. 

The BSB has recently published a consultation paper on its proposals for revisions to barristers’ practising arrangements. Charles Hollander QC and Sarah Brown outline the key themes and explore the challenges ahead.  

The Legal Services Act 2007 (“the Act”) introduces into the regulatory arena the principle of authorisation to practise. In terms of the Bar, this requires new procedures which build upon and extend the current practising certificate regime. The Bar Standards Board (“BSB”) has recently issued a consultation paper on its proposals for authorisation to practise arrangements. 

Amid reports that the Revenue will soon start a concerted campaign targeting the tax affairs of self-employed barristers, Ashley Hayman considers what the Revenue will be looking for.  

Giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in 2008, Dave Hartnett, Acting Chairman of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs  (“the Revenue”), reported that there had been 57 barristers who were in the “hidden economy” and not paying any tax at all. Maybe such cases were deliberate; maybe they were due to astonishing oversight. But if you happen to be in the hidden economy you need to take urgent advice about putting your affairs in order before the Revenue launch a tax enquiry into you. Even the vast majority who do submit accounts and tax returns to the Revenue are not immune from challenge. The Revenue have recently shown a close interest in the tax affairs of a number of respectable professionals (including, for example, doctors and vets), and there is a specialist team at the Euston Tower tax office charged with enquiring into the affairs of barristers. 

The Bar Council has been running a joint roadshow with the BSB to initiate a debate on the business implications and opportunities presented by the Legal Services Act 2007 and the BSB’s rule changes. Paul Mosson and Ariel Ricci report back.  

On 20 November 2009 the Bar Standards Board (“BSB”) announced decisions that have the potential to change the face of the Bar as we know it. While the BSB waits for these proposed changes to be approved by the Legal Services Board (“LSB”), the Bar Council put into motion a plan of action to begin educating and obtaining feedback from the profession. Last December, the Circuit Leaders, together with the Chairman of the Bar, Nick Green QC, and the BSB began scheduling a national roadshow to initiate a debate about how the profession can not only survive, but grow stronger and retain its unique attributes. 

New diversity statistics show that of 624 lawyers applying for 36 posts as fee paid employment tribunal judges between April and September 2009, 40 per cent of applicants and 54 per cent of those selected were women, while 13 per cent of applicants and 6 per cent of those selected were from a BME background. Solicitors made up 72 per cent of applicants and three-quarters of appointees, and disabled people accounted for six per cent of applicants and appointees.  

What do candidates sitting the Crown Court Recordership Competition think of the qualifying tests? How to you assess whether someone will be a good Recorder? How do you conduct the first cull in a process where there have been 1,000 applicants for only 128 positions?  

The Judicial Appointments Commission (“JAC”), facing this problem, has since 2008 required candidates in the Crown Court recordership competition to sit a test in which he or she gives their decisions and reasons in respect of various matters which arise in a trial in which they apply a given, fictional body of law. 

Many of Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations will have a direct impact on the Bar’s way of life, warns Stuart Sime 

Sir Rupert Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report (“the Review”) was published on 14 January 2010. It will have profound effects on the conduct of litigation and the remuneration of lawyers. Without doubt it is the most important report in the area of civil law since Lord Woolf’s report on Access to Justice in 1996. Like the best reports in recent years (Lord Neuberger’s report on Entry to the Bar, 2007, is another example), Sir Rupert recognises that systemic problems cannot be cured by single big point remedies.